MSNBC Ratings Crater To All-Time Lows, Fox News Tops Q1 Results, CNN Up

[BlackSand]

Ironically, "pinning down" is exactly what I try to do with this definition. Nobody wants to play that way. Except as you did here, but most posters here aren't in smelling distance of your rhetorical integrity. You carry a distinct fearlessness, and I greatly respect that. Around here it's like an oasis.

Well, I am pretty sure it was my Strict Constructionist leanings that encouraged me to answer your request.
I understand your desire to "pin things down" ... Especially in the context of law.

My greatest difficulty with legislation does not exist in the text of the legislation ... But exists in the constant attempt of others to define the text in regards to their desires.
To me ... The law says what it says ... And we add ambiguity to it when we want to make it say something different, or what it doesn't say at all.

We argue over interpretations to an extent that the law becomes useless in providing anything it was initially intended to provide.
I certainly don't think that laws should not be amended to include improvements ... But if necessary, just change the law through the required process.
Instead ... The habits of legislators tend to lean towards writing new legislation that further carves out additional needs for clarification ... And offers nothing more that additional ambiguity.

I believe that simple is simple ... And then people mess up legislation in attempts to carve out loopholes that better suit their individual desires..

.

 

[Pogo]

Ironically, "pinning down" is exactly what I try to do with this definition. Nobody wants to play that way. Except as you did here, but most posters here aren't in smelling distance of your rhetorical integrity. You carry a distinct fearlessness, and I greatly respect that. Around here it's like an oasis.

Well, I am pretty sure it was my Strict Constructionist leanings that encouraged me to answer your request.
I understand your desire to "pin things down" ... Especially in the context of law.

My greatest difficulty with legislation does not exist in the text of the legislation ... But exist in constant attempt of others to define the text in regards to their desires.
To me ... The law says what it says ... And we add ambiguity to it when we want to make it say something different, or what it doesn't say at all.

We argue over interpretations to an extent that the law becomes useless in providing anything it was initially intended to provide.
I certainly don't think that laws should not be amended to include improvements ... But if necessary, just change the law through the required process.
Instead ... The habits of legislators tend to lean towards writing new legislation that further carves out additional needs for clarification ... And offers nothing more that additional ambiguity.

I believe that simple is simple ... And then people mess up legislation in attempts to carve out loopholes that better suit their individual desires..

But we're not speaking of laws. We're speaking of rhetorical terms.

Not sure what you mean by "Constructionist" either but I don't wanna be a nag.

 

[Mr.Right]

[Q TUOTE="Delta4Embassy, post: 11094623, member: 46449"]Explanation's simple enough:

"The truth is always an insult or a joke, lies are generally tastier. We love them. The nature of lies is to please. Truth has no concern for anyones comfort" - Arturo Binewski

Highest ratings go to those who tell us what we want to hear.[/QUOTE]
I would hardly call what I'm seeing on Fox News comforting.a lot of it I don't want to hear because it's depressing how far our country has fallen.if anything, stations like MSNBC Pander to those who can't handle reality

 

[BlackSand]

But we're not speaking of laws. We're speaking of rhetorical terms.

Not sure what you mean by "Constructionist" either but I don't wanna be a nag.

Well to start with ... It isn't "Constructionist" ... It is "Strict Constructionist".
It refers to people who desire a more "literal" interpretation of the law.

I only commented towards that because it explained why I entertained your desire to seek a "literal" definition of Progressives.

.

 

[Pogo]

Explanation's simple enough:

"The truth is always an insult or a joke, lies are generally tastier. We love them. The nature of lies is to please. Truth has no concern for anyones comfort" - Arturo Binewski

Highest ratings go to those who tell us what we want to hear.

I would hardly call what I'm seeing on Fox News comforting.a lot of it I don't want to hear because it's depressing how far our country has fallen.if anything, stations like MSNBC Pander to those who can't handle reality

That's my point. Fox Noise sells Fear, and it sells. ALL of TV "News" sells fear, because that is what sells. Fox simply does a better job of psycho-manipulation than MSNBC does.

As well they should -- Rupert Murdoch built his empire off gossip tabloid rags. That's what he TV channel became -- a gossip rag using politicians instead of movie stars. He knows the game well, been doing it for decades.

And the guy he hired to run the channel famously said this:

"If two guys are standing there and one guy says 'I know how to bring peace to the Middle East' and the other guy falls into the orchestra pit, which one do you think is going to be on the evening news?"​

He knows the game too.

As far as "reality" --- when you're drumming up stories like the "Knockout Game" and ACORN and Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones and "Hip Hop Barbecue" and Jeremiah Wright, you're not dealing in "reality" -- you're mining Fear -- in this case racial fear.

And there we are, back at the beginning.

 

[Pogo]

But we're not speaking of laws. We're speaking of rhetorical terms.

Not sure what you mean by "Constructionist" either but I don't wanna be a nag.

Well to start with ... It isn't "Constructionist" ... It is "Strict Constructionist".
It refers to people who desire a more "literal" interpretation of the law.

I only commented towards that because it explained why I entertained your desire to seek a "literal" definition of Progressives.

Actually what I seek is ANY definition. As noted, you're the only one who's been fearless enough to tackle it.

The point of all this is not that your meaning (or his or her or their meaning) "should" be this or should be that; the point is that whatever we settle on must be common to all of us. It has to be everybody's meaning, whether they themselves be sympathetic or antagonistic to it. Without that common definition we don't have a working term, which means we don't have a communication.

 

[blastoff]

Staggering audience losses in primetime, especially the 25-54 demo, technically means almost no one's buying their crap.

But a big gold star for Ritchie Maddow's forehead for the great effort in losing 46% of the show's key demo, and 19% of viewers overall.

Somewhere the NBC suits are sharpening the knives. Stay tuned...

 

[Pogo]

Staggering audience losses in primetime, especially the 25-54 demo, technically means almost no one's buying their crap.

But a big gold star for Ritchie Maddow's forehead for the great effort in losing 46% of the show's key demo, and 19% of viewers overall.

Somewhere the NBC suits are sharpening the knives. Stay tuned...

Again -- nobody "buys" content on television. Audiences buy style, not substance. The only content TV sells is Emotion.

If that were not blatantly obviously true, no one could make TV shows out of fake wrestling, people stranded on an island forced to eat bugs, following philanderers around with a camera, Prancing with the Stars, talk show paternity tests, naked strangers marooned on another island, or what turns out to be inside this storage space you just bought at auction. The Weather Channel would spend its evenings presenting what the weather actually is rather than "be-very-afraid" stories about the tsunami that will kill you tomorrow and the hurricane that killed them yesterday, and your local Fraction News wouldn't be making its lead story about some house fire or traffic accident in a neighborhood you never heard of.

The good news is -- it's dying. I'm certainly not the only one to look at my TV and ask, what the fuck are you contributing here?" and show it the door.

People are Unplugging​

 

[BlackSand]

Actually what I seek is ANY definition. As noted, you're the only one who's been fearless enough to tackle it.

The point of all this is not that your meaning (or his or her or their meaning) "should" be this or should be that; the point is that whatever we settle on must be common to all of us. It has to be everybody's meaning, whether they themselves be sympathetic or antagonistic to it. Without that common definition we don't have a working term, which means we don't have a communication.

Maybe that is the problem at the base of discussion.
Perhaps you don't have a working term ... And you are simply waiting for us to agree with whatever meaning you have decided.

If you are not satisfied with the definition someone gives you in reference to their use of the word ... It is not necessarily their fault or shortcoming if you find some self-determined reason to disagree with it.

.

 

[Pogo]

Actually what I seek is ANY definition. As noted, you're the only one who's been fearless enough to tackle it.

The point of all this is not that your meaning (or his or her or their meaning) "should" be this or should be that; the point is that whatever we settle on must be common to all of us. It has to be everybody's meaning, whether they themselves be sympathetic or antagonistic to it. Without that common definition we don't have a working term, which means we don't have a communication.

Maybe that is the problem at the base of discussion.
Perhaps you don't have a working term ... And you are simply waiting for us to agree with whatever meaning you have decided.

If you are not satisfied with the definition someone gives you in reference to their use of the word ... It is not necessarily their fault or shortcoming if you find some self-determined reason to disagree with it.

I don't use the term at all, ever, so I have no definition "decided". I can't very well define a term I don't subscribe to in the first place.

Far as I'm concerned "Progressives" was a label applied to a contemporary trend of 100 to 120 years ago, and even that wasn't clearly defined. A few decades hence it was used by Robert LaFollette for a run at the White House, without necessarily meaning the same thing then (for LaFollette it was more at "Populist"). Now here it comes again, dredged up by, as far as I know, Glenn Beck, with no more explanation for itself than the deliberate conflation of "Liberal" with "leftist" in the McCarthy daze --- and from all appearances for the same rhetorical purpose, which in that case was to demonize without fear of definition, hiding behind an orthographic fake rock. Which is intellectual cowardice.

That's why I ask the question relentlessly. I want someone to describe, if this emperor is wearing clothes, what they look like. If they can't do that, well it just further affirms my hypothesis of an empty term devoid of meaning. Which is directly related to my sigline.

Ultimately it's at base a marketing term, using the positive adjective "progressive", opposite of "regressive", with no more credibility than a political party describing itself as "Democratic" or "Republican". I just seek the, uh, progression of how a positive adjective turns into a negative, without even stopping at the lexicographical ATM to withdraw a definition.

 

[BlackSand]

That's why I ask the question relentlessly. I want someone to describe, if this emperor is wearing clothes, what they look like. If they can't do that, well it just further affirms my hypothesis of an empty term devoid of meaning.

Well ... All is fair game and I don't mind sparring with you ... There is one pertinent point that can be made though.

If a person has explained their meaning ... And the general sense of the argument on your part devolves to disagreement on the basis of linguistics alone ... Then it becomes evident that you have completely deserted the desire to actually communicate and come to an understanding ... In favor of dictating your understanding to the other person.

At that point ... I can only express that the insistence to tell other people they are wrong ... Is never an effective communication skill.

.

 

[Pogo]

That's why I ask the question relentlessly. I want someone to describe, if this emperor is wearing clothes, what they look like. If they can't do that, well it just further affirms my hypothesis of an empty term devoid of meaning.

Well ... All is fair game and I don't mind sparring with you ...

That's exactly why I like you.

There is one pertinent point that can be made though.

If a person has explained their meaning ... And the general sense of the argument on your part devolves to disagreement on the basis of linguistics alone ... Then it becomes evident that you have completely deserted the desire to actually communicate and come to an understanding ... In favor of dictating your understanding to the other person.

At that point ... I can only express that the insistence to tell other people they are wrong ... Is never an effective communication skill.

But just as one cannot have a definition for a term one does not use, finally hearing one out of dozens of requests cannot lead to a conclusion that the one given is "wrong". There's no way to conclude that.

All of my above ponderation applies to the greater whole, not to you as the only voice to even respond to the question. From where I sit I can't tell if anyone else who does use the term agrees, disagrees, or agrees with qualification. I can't tell if you derived that definition independently, from inference out of general usage, from a third party, or what. So I have absolutely no basis to conclude "wrong"; far as I'm concerned the question remains open until we have a consensus. We can't have a term without some degree of consensus on what it means.

You've tackled the question, so now my musing is -- why hasn't anyone else? Well as already articulated I have my hypothesis as to why that is. It remains open but the(ir) silence is eloquent.

This one, for example, is into its third month of eloquence....

I guess where all this comes from is I want to know of my adversary, "how did you get to that point? Did you think it through?". You gave at least an answer; no one else has. That leaves me with no other indication than that they are mouthing something they heard, and don't know why.

 

[BlackSand]

I would hardly call what I'm seeing on Fox News comforting.a lot of it I don't want to hear because it's depressing how far our country has fallen.if anything, stations like MSNBC Pander to those who can't handle reality

Anyone who cannot understand the disparity in ratings between Fox News and the 6-8 other Major News Stations ... Would probably have difficulty understanding why cattle ranchers don't shop for boots at Bloomingdale's and young city ladies don't go to Cavender's looking for a new pair of stilettoes.

.